All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

Comparison of diagnostic methods for Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae detection in salmonid fish

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00027162%3A_____%2F21%3AN0000100" target="_blank" >RIV/00027162:_____/21:N0000100 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Alternative codes found

    RIV/68081766:_____/21:00541652 RIV/62156489:43210/21:43919671 RIV/62157124:16270/21:43879784

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfd.13375" target="_blank" >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jfd.13375</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfd.13375" target="_blank" >10.1111/jfd.13375</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    Comparison of diagnostic methods for Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae detection in salmonid fish

  • Original language description

    Diagnostic accuracy of pathogen detection depends upon the selection of suitable tests. Problems can arise when the selected diagnostic test gives false-positive or false-negative results, which can affect control measures, with consequences for the population health. The aim of this study was to compare sensitivity of different diagnostic methods IHC, PCR and qPCR detecting Tetracapsuloides bryosalmonae, the causative agent of proliferative kidney disease in salmonid fish and as a consequence differences in disease prevalence. We analysed tissue from 388 salmonid specimens sampled from a recirculating system and rivers in the Czech Republic. Overall prevalence of T. bryosalmonae was extremely high at 92.0%, based on positive results of at least one of the above-mentioned screening methods. IHC resulted in a much lower detection rate (30.2%) than both PCR methods (qPCR32: 65.4%, PCR: 81.9%). While qPCR32 produced a good match with IHC (60.8%), all other methods differed significantly (p < .001) in the proportion of samples determined positive. Both PCR methods showed similar sensitivity, though specificity (i.e., the proportion of non-diseased fish classified correctly) differed significantly (p < .05). Sample preservation method significantly (p < .05) influenced the results of PCR, with a much lower DNA yield extracted from paraffin-embedded samples. Use of different methods that differ in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity resulted in random and systematic diagnosis errors, illustrating the importance of interpreting the results of each method carefully.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    40301 - Veterinary science

Result continuities

  • Project

    <a href="/en/project/EF16_019%2F0000869" target="_blank" >EF16_019/0000869: Sustainable production of healthy fish in various aquaculture systems - PROFISH</a><br>

  • Continuities

    P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Others

  • Publication year

    2021

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Name of the periodical

    Journal of Fish Diseases

  • ISSN

    0140-7775

  • e-ISSN

    1365-2761

  • Volume of the periodical

    44

  • Issue of the periodical within the volume

    8

  • Country of publishing house

    US - UNITED STATES

  • Number of pages

    7

  • Pages from-to

    1147–1153

  • UT code for WoS article

    000638551400001

  • EID of the result in the Scopus database

    2-s2.0-85104125419